Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

This won't change the hoaxers opinions in the least; how many failed predictions have they made over the past several decades? The global warming Kool-Aid is strong!

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

This won't change the hoaxers opinions in the least; how many failed predictions have they made over the past several decades? The global warming Kool-Aid is strong!

Yes, but they haven't been proven 100% wrong, and the deniers have been proven wrong in some cases, so in their world, that means they are right and the deniers are wrong.

You can produce the exact same graphs, which fails to mention that those exact same "realists" said we were heading into a catastrophic manmade ice age before the realist realized they had it assbackwards and we were heading into a manmade catastrophic warming, now change which is catastrophic, well except when that change is made by an inexperience and incompetent community organizer.

This is what we get from the "realists"

And why they need to learn the lesson of Aesop

Because some day their hysteria may actually be warranted, but why the hell would anyone believe them.

This has become totally political and neither side gives a rat's ass for the science. It's just a tool to discredit your political opponents. I think that's what a true realist would say if they step back and examine the evidence. And until you tell me how you will stop China, India, and any other large underdeveloped country from developing, I will never agree to the economic harm that comes from using our limited resources in a quixotic attempt to limit the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

There is not "average" though clenchers love to claim there is. You may come up with a rough average over the past ten years or twenty years, but that is not the average for a planet that counts time in hundreds of thousands and millions of years. And the average IQ of America is 50. Well, my ncount was three democrats so I can make my claim just a confidently as the clenchers make their claim.

And since we know that the vast majority of life thrives in warmth, why is a planet that has been warming since the last ice age a bad thing, though that warming seems to have stopped for about 17 years? Why would a stagnant temperature or declining temperature be a good thing?

This is purely the Church of Global Warming wanting to claim man as their original sin. Get over it.

BTW, what exactly do all these scientist agree to? Can someone get me the exact wording of that statement that they agree to?

I have no doubt that with more CO2 in the atmosphere that the earth will be warmer than it other wise would be.

I also have no doubt that CO2 levels are higher than they otherwise would be as a result of man's activities, specifically burning coal and oil.

So yes, I have no doubt that man made global warming is real.

How much warmer? Who knows?

What are the consequences? Who knows?

Are those consequences on average good or bad? Who knows?

Can we really do anything meaningful? Nope.

If we try will we do more harm than good? Almost certainly. Can't say for 100% sure because nobody knows with certainty what the consequences are, but given that it is vanishingly small that we can get China to care and do we hope to keep India and the other impoverished people impoverished indefinitely? If they are not so damned poor, they can easily adapt to the negative impacts, if they exist.

Nobody would ever go to work if all you did is focus on the negatives. The environmental alarmists only focus on the negatives, so they come to the predictable conclusion that it is nothing but negatives

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:

This should be man bear pig, not a wolf.

Not at all. Environmental issues are real. We have made great strides at getting the worst ones better under control, but they have not been extirpated. When you have people screaming wolf, when all they really mean is that they don't know for sure that there is not a wolf, people will just ignore them and some day, hey, they may be right, and nobody will listen or conversely like we see, some people are so paranoid that they accept large risks and fear tiny risks: nuclear power being the perfect example.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

So before said ice age... What was the temp like? Couldn't have been too cold. Lizards (dinosaurs) last I heard, were cold blooded. An Anamal that big would need some temp to maintain a proper body heat. And if that was normal, they wouldn't have called it an Ice Age. They would've called it "before it warmed up".

Global warming and cooling has been going on for a very long time. We as humans are not significant enough to matter to Mother Nature. She will go right on planning our demise as a species no matter what we do to prevent or help her along.

ScaupHunter wrote:We as humans are not significant enough to matter to Mother Nature.

But we are more than significant enough to screw up life for ourselves. I really think this argument holds no weight.

Would life go on after a full scale nuclear war between the U.S., Russia, and China? Of course. Would we screw up life for ourselves pretty damn good? Of course.

I don't think CO2 is going to screw up life for us on a grand scale or probably even on a small scale, but it's not because collectively humans are not significant enough to matter.

We could, but despite the thinking of the control freaks, we don't want to screw things up for ourselves and we therefore right the ship. The problem I see is with them crying wolf all the time, this fear mongering will discredit those trying to address real problems that really do screw things up for many people. I think the harm caused by urban air quality is almost lost in the CO2 insanity. A very difficult problem, but something that obviously screws things up for many people the world over.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

ScaupHunter wrote:We as humans are not significant enough to matter to Mother Nature.

But we are more than significant enough to screw up life for ourselves. I really think this argument holds no weight.

Would life go on after a full scale nuclear war between the U.S., Russia, and China? Of course. Would we screw up life for ourselves pretty damn good? Of course.

I don't think CO2 is going to screw up life for us on a grand scale or probably even on a small scale, but it's not because collectively humans are not significant enough to matter.

We could, but despite the thinking of the control freaks, we don't want to screw things up for ourselves and we therefore right the ship. The problem I see is with them crying wolf all the time, this fear mongering will discredit those trying to address real problems that really do screw things up for many people. I think the harm caused by urban air quality is almost lost in the CO2 insanity. A very difficult problem, but something that obviously screws things up for many people the world over.

That is comparing apples to oranges, spinner (nuclear war v CO2 production).

The natural levels of radioactive material released into the atmosphere are far less than what a nuclear war would cause.The natural levels of CO2 released in to the atmosphere are far dominant to the amount released by industrial practices.

There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.

You are overthinking this one. We cannot stop China, India, et. al from dumping way more CO2 into our atmosphere. They will do it, and we will see some changes. It is not going to kill the human race like a Nuclear Winter would. Mother nature has far more effective methods for destroying us than we ourselves have. For example the Asteroid that is potentially going to hit Earth in a few years. A new Ice age. A new disease like the Black Plague. Tectonic actions and severe volcanic activity causing years of no summers for food production due to dust in the atmosphere, etc.......

ScaupHunter wrote:We as humans are not significant enough to matter to Mother Nature.

But we are more than significant enough to screw up life for ourselves. I really think this argument holds no weight.

Would life go on after a full scale nuclear war between the U.S., Russia, and China? Of course. Would we screw up life for ourselves pretty damn good? Of course.

I don't think CO2 is going to screw up life for us on a grand scale or probably even on a small scale, but it's not because collectively humans are not significant enough to matter.

We could, but despite the thinking of the control freaks, we don't want to screw things up for ourselves and we therefore right the ship. The problem I see is with them crying wolf all the time, this fear mongering will discredit those trying to address real problems that really do screw things up for many people. I think the harm caused by urban air quality is almost lost in the CO2 insanity. A very difficult problem, but something that obviously screws things up for many people the world over.

That is comparing apples to oranges, spinner (nuclear war v CO2 production).

The natural levels of radioactive material released into the atmosphere are far less than what a nuclear war would cause.The natural levels of CO2 released in to the atmosphere are far dominant to the amount released by industrial practices.

His argument is that we are not significant enough to make a difference. It's not true across the board.

As far as the radioactivity released by nuclear war, globally, I think it would not be significant. Locally, of course. Not sure, but I doubt it would be the primary source of our problem, but I could be wrong. It would be the vast disruption and destruction and not the fallout that would be hardest to cope with. I believe the nuclear winter concept has been discredited. However, the point is we can be quite significant and the energy released by the nuclear bombs is probably a small fraction of the energy we use over the year in a our industries. If I did the math correct, a one megaton bomb is the same energy as a typical power plant operating for a month and a half. We use a lot of energy and it can have an impact.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the atmospheric CO2 levels have been increased by industrial practices. It's absolutely not in doubt. It takes belief in some truly unbelievable coincidences to think it is not. If a system is in balance, and you add 5%, it will be 5% out of balance until the new balance is established, but you don't credit that imbalance to the original 95%, but the new 5%.

The question is what does that 5% (or whatever the number) imbalance lead to. That imbalance keeps growing, so it will never achieve a new balance until it stabilizes. Hey the federal budget is only out of balance a little in a percent of GDP basis. No worries there.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

5% more CO2 isn't a noticeable blip to Mother Nature. We could run it up to 50% more CO2 than before humans and it still wouldn't matter in the long run. Mother nature would compensate by growing more plants, bigger plants, and healthier plants. Producing more oxygen, thus finding equilibrium at some new level.

In the length of time humans will remain on this rock any real changes from CO2 increases won't be noticeable. Air pollution is an entirely different topic, and has had and will have significant impacts to human and other life. Air pollution is ignored in the CO2 hype which tells you what the clenchers really care about.

Flooding the coastlines of today? Completely irrelevant to human survival. Changing weather patterns? totally irrelevant to human survival. Would individuals and groups suffer? Sure. That is entirely irrelevant to the human survival equation. The human species is well beyond the numbers we need for reproductive success. 1/10th of todays world population would guarantee the continued success of the human species.

Now a planet killing asteroid, a mass quick killing epidemic, or some other catastrophic event that could cause our extinction. Mother Nature has a million ways she can destroy us. The real question is when will she unleash the next one?

Oh, and by the way, you cannot discount nuclear winter unless you try it out in real life. Every nuke launched, massive amounts of radiation and dust thrown into the air, etc.... Who knows, maybe it kills us all, maybe it doesn't. Only one way to know for sure.

And "producing" more CO2 does not necessarily increase the amount CO2 in the atmosphere.Plants absorb CO2 and increasing the availability of CO2 may increase plant growth and self balance.

Yes, increasing the CO2 does increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's a question of how much and what are the consequences.

Yeah, I know that you can theorize that it could perfectly balance, but it does not. You increase the input and the level rises until the outputs are equal to the inputs.

Plant growth and all that increases, but they will come into balance at a higher level and not at the original level.

If you never stop increasing the input, the level will never stop rising and no new balance will ever be reached.

To come into balance at the old level, I think it would have to be an unstable system. Or the atmospheric CO2 level would never change regardless of the level of natural or manmade inputs. I can't even think how it would work where the level in the atmosphere is independent of the level of input. Regardless, history shows that it is not.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

And "producing" more CO2 does not necessarily increase the amount CO2 in the atmosphere.Plants absorb CO2 and increasing the availability of CO2 may increase plant growth and self balance.

Yes, increasing the CO2 does increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's a question of how much and what are the consequences.

Yeah, I know that you can theorize that it could perfectly balance, but it does not. You increase the input and the level rises until the outputs are equal to the inputs.

Plant growth and all that increases, but they will come into balance at a higher level and not at the original level.

If you never stop increasing the input, the level will never stop rising and no new balance will ever be reached.

To come into balance at the old level, I think it would have to be an unstable system. Or the atmospheric CO2 level would never change regardless of the level of natural or manmade inputs. I can't even think how it would work where the level in the atmosphere is independent of the level of input. Regardless, history shows that it is not.

I understand whatyou are saying but the amount increased is nothing to be concerend with, as of right now.

There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.

Ice machines. According to the Law of Thermodynamics, there can only be so much ice in the world. Since the invention and proliferation of ice machines, mostly in U.S.A. in North America, the ice produced by them has been offset by ice reduction in the polar regions. So, the question is "Where do we really want our ice?" In our iced tea glasses, or up north where it only benefits a few mangy polar bears and idiot seals?